[natedog]

We here all the time about the flaws of the M-16, Ak-47, etc, but rarely do we here about the M-14. I doubt it could be perfect. Could somebody list the flaws of the M-14/M-1A type rifles? Thank you.

[Tamara]

For starters, the external reciprocating op-rod has to be one of the biggest annoyances in the world of firearms, and I say this as a happy Garand owner. :uhoh:

[Black Snowman]

Weight? Can be a blessing and a curse I guess. It's the most common thing I see complaints about. Don't have one myself. . . yet :)

[4v50 Gary]

1) Operating tip:

Don't reach over the receiver with your left hand to operate the operating rod. You can dislodge it from the receiver. Better to use the right hand as the right tends to pull it down and keep it within the rails.

2) Ammo sensitive

Stick w/mil-surp or something close to mil-surp. Not really an issue though and if you handload, keep it within mil-surp specs (velocity & pressure).

3) Versatility

Not much compared to the AR-15. By swapping uppers, you can make the AR a carbine, a sub-gun (with mag adapter), a medium range sniper rifle. Can't say the same for the M-14.

4) Service

Any Tom/Dick/Harriet can service the AR and it won't cost you a king's ransom for the tools. The M-14 is a different story.

5) Design

Let's get nitty-gritty. Plenty of moving parts on the M-14. We're talking gas piston, op-rod, bolt. All those moving parts affect the barrel's harmonic and the more they move, the less consistent the barrel harmonics and the greater the inconsistency in group size. In addition, handguard needs to be stabilized as the gas cylinder unit unitized for more consistent harmonics. The gun needs to be bedded and you really shouldn't take it apart for cleaning. It can be a high maintenance prima-donna.

The AR is simpler. Gas impingment action. No op rod to move. Just a bolt & buffer. Handguard is easily free-floated to reduce its affect on the barrel harmonics. Nothing to glass bed either. Betcha money the AR system (like the SR-25) will easily beat the M-14 in a prolonged shooting contest. The AR design is more maintenance free.

[Chris Rhines]

Another comment on the stock - any rifle that uses a reciever that contacts the stock at multiple points is going to be less accurate than a unitized reciever design, such as the AR-15. Bedding the action is, while certainly better than nothing, at best a partial solution.

Cast recievers stretch under long-term use. Since the bolt locks into the reciever rather than the barrel, this will eventually cause headspace troubles.

No pistol grip.

Safety that is, at best, unsafe to use.

Bolt handle on the wrong side.

- Chris

[Andrew Wyatt]

Safety that is, at best, unsafe to use.


I'm going to have to call BS on that, considering the finger is in the triggerguard to put it in the "off" position, which is time to shoot anyway.



also, the bolt hande is a pretty decent location for righties, as they don't have to reach over the rifle to actuate it.

[Hkmp5sd]

While not 'zactly a flaw, a characteristic of the M14, at least when I shoot one, is it will beat you to death on full auto. With true assault weapons like the M16 and AK-47 using intermediate sized cartridges, it is far easier to keep the gun on target in the full-auto mode.

The M14 seems to be the result of trying to combine the capabilities of the M1 (battle rifle) and the BAR (squad automatic weapon) into a single weapon while totally ignoring the benefits of the Sturmgewehr (assault weapon) and the MG42 machinegun introduced by Germany during WWII.

[zxc]

Cost, wt, mags-all I can overlook. As a tool, nothing special. Flaws? seems
wierd capable of FA but requires keys?

[Chris Rhines]

Righties should be using the left hand to operate the bolt handle, so they can maintain firing control over the rifle with their strong hand. True, it is tough to hold an M14 up with one hand, but that's true of most .308 semis. And the M14 is the lightest full-size .308 semi out there (that I know of.)

Any safety that requires the finger to go inside the trigger guard is not safe. Ready to shoot or no, there's way too much chance for an unintended discharge with the M14 and Garand system. It would be an easy fix, too.

- Chris

[444]

Too long for close quarters battle.
Heavy.
Ammo is bulky and heavy.
Military ball ammo is a poor performer. You get no expansion, no fragmentation, no tumbling. Just a .308" hole drilled through. This of course isn't a bad thing, but not great either.

[Andrew Wyatt]

Chris: I don't understand why you think it's not safe. the weapon can be cleared with it on, the finger doesn't go into the triggerguard untill ready to fire (like every other rifle) and there is no occasion where a person needs to put his finger in the triggerguard other than when they are ready to shoot.

[dave3006]

The price - major flaw. I saw one for $1400 today. I could buy 3 CMP Garands for that.

Quality - SA produces alot of lemons. Chances are your rifle will need to go back to the factory at least once.

[Daniel Watters]

Most of the legend of the M14 seems to be based on National Match, M21, and other custom-tuned examples. Ironically, during its brief production run, the rack-grade M14 was considered to be inferior to the earlier M1 Garand in both design and workmanship. In March of 1962, Aberdeen's Development and Proof Services released "Report on Tests for Ad Hoc Committee on Accuracy and Testing of 7.62mm Ammunition and M14 Rifles". For the testing, twenty-one M14 rifles had been chosen at random from rifles already accepted for military issue. Three manufacturers (Springfield, Winchester, and H&R) were represented by seven new rifles apiece.

All of the rifles from Winchester and H&R exhibited excessive headspace.
All of the rifles had loose handguards.
95% of the rifles had loose stock bands.
90% of the rifles had loose gas cylinders.
75% of the rifles had misaligned op rods and gas pistons.
50% of the rifles had loose op rod guides.
50% of the rifles had op rods which rubbed the stock.
Three rifles had barrels which exceeded the maximum bore dimensions.
Only three rifles had an average bore diameter which fell below the accepted mean diameter.
One rifle was found to have a broken safety while another had a misassembled safety spring.
One rifle had a misassembled flash suppressor which was actually contacting bullets during live fire tests.

A barrel from each manufacturer was sectioned for examination of the bore and chrome lining. The chrome lining was out of tolerance (uneven and on average too thin) in all three barrels. The H&R barrel also failed the surface-finish requirements.

During accuracy testing, the M14 rifles produced greater group dispersion and variation in the center of impact than the control rifles (two M1 Garands rechambered for 7.62x51mm along with two AR10). NATO testing was quoted indicating that the Canadian C1 (FN FAL) and German G3 were also less sensitive to variations within and among ammo lots.

Shutting off the gas port in the M14 rifles resulted in an average 20% reduction in extreme spread compared to those groups fired with the gas port open. This also reduced the variation in the center of impact.

[Kaylee]

What's the nature of the question? Flaws with the mechanical design of the M14, flaws with the appropriateness of the M14 for any given mission, or flaws with any given manufacturer's rendition of the design?

Very different questions. Personally, I think the latter two points are moot. Thus I'll not address the weapon/ammo weight issues or the "XX manufacture sucks" issues.

Cost is a function of it being a holdover from a machinine-heavy 1930's design, no longer produced in the same numbers as the AR, so without the same support (esp. gov't contract support) to manufacture. Also comparing a new M1A in price to an M1 surplused years ago I don't think is a fair comparison. Mag price issues solely a function of stupid laws and proscribed manufacture/limited original manufacture. Again, not fundamental design issues, except inasmuch as that receiver required way more work than other rifles of its day and was as such uneconomical to produce for comparable results.


As to the design itself... the more I deal with it, the more I dislike the op-rod-in-an-outside-track idea. It works, sure... except when you accidentally dissassemble it by pulling the charging handle the wrong way at the wrong time. That's a fundamental problem.

Also, I think I'll commit the unpardonable sin here and say I think the rear sight assembly is overdone for use on a combat rifle. In my not-so-expert opinion, windage should be set-and-forget, and I HATE the way that little tongue sticks up when the range is set way high, and loses most of its bearing surface on the rear sight spring cover thingie.I know the M1/M14 series has a reputation as "the best battle rifle sights known to man".... but I don't like 'em.

Putting the front sight on the flash suppressor. Flash suppressor gets a little wiggly in the field, who has a set of castle nut pliers on 'em? Yech.

Above noted bedding issues.

klugey optic mounting solutions.. though they've gotten pretty good lately.


All that said, it's about the purtiest general-purpose semi .308 out there. I wouldn't equip an army with it, but I sure like it. :)

[Andrew Wyatt]

I HATE the way that little tongue sticks up when the range is set way high



I like that, as it reminds me that i have my sights set way high. IMHO, adjustable battle rifle sights should have some kind of feature that says "LOOK AT ME! I'M SET TOO HIGH!", since i've had problems in the past with adjustable sights being set on the wrong setting. (like the last time i shot the walking/running man.

[Nightcrawler]

Too long for close quarters battle.

The M14 is, I believe, 4" longer than an M16. I don't that would matter a great deal when clearing a bunker or a trench.

I know, I know, if it has a barrel longer than 16" it's completely useless for targets inside 100 yards....or so people think sometimes, it seems.

[444]

The one big complaint in everything I have read from the current war in Iraq is that they need shorter weapons for CQB. They feel that the standard M16 is too long. The M14 is 6" longer than an M16 with a 20" barrel. The M4 obviously would be at least 11" shorter than an M14 even with the stock fully extended.

[Nightcrawler]

You sure? An M16 is 40". An M14 is 44", I believe, with it's 22" barrel. At least, that's the length of a Springfield Armory M1A, according to their website.

But the fact that it might be poorly suited to....what? Use inside of a small hallway? Isn't really a design flaw. After all, on the other hand, a 10" Colt Commando makes a very poor long ranged battle rifle. It's a trade off. I don't think it's an inherent flaw of the design. And, if you really want to, you can get an M14 rifle chopped down to be quite a mean little shorty carbine, complete with all of the rails and whatnot for hanging your doo-dads off of.

Due to the nature of this Iraq war, and the large numbers of civilians involved, there was an inordinate amount of house-clearing. However, if there aren't so many civilians around, it's probably easier and safer to simply blow a house up than to send guys in to clear it out.

[VG]

Congressional Medal of Honor Citations for actions in Mogadishu, Somalia

*GORDON, GARY I.

Rank and organization: Master Sergeant, U.S. Army. Place and date: 3 October 1993, Mogadishu, Somalia. Entered service at: ----- Born: Lincoln, Maine. Citation: Master Sergeant Gordon, United States Army, distinguished himself by actions above and beyond the call of duty on 3 October 1993, while serving as Sniper Team Leader, United States Army Special Operations Command with Task Force Ranger in Mogadishu, Somalia. Master Sergeant Gordon's sniper team provided precision fires from the lead helicopter during an assault and at two helicopter crash sites, while subjected to intense automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenade fires. When Master Sergeant Gordon learned that ground forces were not immediately available to secure the second crash site, he and another sniper unhesitatingly volunteered to be inserted to protect the four critically wounded personnel, despite being well aware of the growing number of enemy personnel closing in on the site. After his third request to be inserted, Master Sergeant Gordon received permission to perform his volunteer mission. When debris and enemy ground fires at the site caused them to abort the first attempt, Master Sergeant Gordon was inserted one hundred meters south of the crash site. Equipped with only his sniper rifle and a pistol, Master Sergeant Gordon and his fellow sniper, while under intense small arms fire from the enemy, fought their way through a dense maze of shanties and shacks to reach the critically injured crew members. Master Sergeant Gordon immediately pulled the pilot and the other crew members from the aircraft, establishing a perimeter which placed him and his fellow sniper in the most vulnerable position. Master Sergeant Gordon used his long range rifle and side arm to kill an undetermined number of attackers until he depleted his ammunition. Master Sergeant Gordon then went back to the wreckage, recovering some of the crew's weapons and ammunition. Despite the fact that he was critically low on ammunition, he provided some of it to the dazed pilot and then radioed for help. Master Sergeant Gordon continued to travel the perimeter, protecting the downed crew. After his team member was fatally wounded and his own rifle ammunition exhausted, Master Sergeant Gordon returned to the wreckage, recovering a rifle with the last five rounds of ammunition and gave it to the pilot with the words, "good luck." Then, armed only with his pistol, Master Sergeant Gordon continued to fight until he was fatally wounded. His actions saved the pilot's life. Master Sergeant Gordon's extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty were in keeping with the highest standards of military service and reflect great credit upon him, his unit and the United States Army.

*SHUGHART, RANDALL D.

Rank and organization: Sergeant First Class, U.S. Army. Place and date: 3 October 1993, Mogadishu, Somalia. Entered service at: ----- Born: Newville, Pennsylvania. Citation: Sergeant First Class Shughart, United States Army, distinguished himself by actions above and beyond the call of duty on 3 October 1993, while serving as a Sniper Team Member, United States Army Special Operations Command with Task Force Ranger in Mogadishu, Somalia. Sergeant First Class Shughart provided precision sniper fires from the lead helicopter during an assault on a building and at two helicopter crash sites, while subjected to intense automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenade fires. While providing critical suppressive fires at the second crash site, Sergeant First Class Shughart and his team leader learned that ground forces were not immediately available to secure the site. Sergeant First Class Shughart and his team leader unhesitatingly volunteered to be inserted to protect the four critically wounded personnel, despite being well aware of the growing number of enemy personnel closing in on the site. After their third request to be inserted, Sergeant First Class Shughart and his team leader received permission to perform this volunteer mission. When debris and enemy ground fires at the site caused them to abort the first attempt, Sergeant First Class Shughart and his team leader were inserted one hundred meters south of the crash site. Equipped with only his sniper rifle and a pistol, Sergeant First Class Shughart and his team leader, while under intense small arms fire from the enemy, fought their way through a dense maze of shanties and shacks to reach the critically injured crew members. Sergeant First Class Shughart pulled the pilot and the other crew members from the aircraft, establishing a perimeter which placed him and his fellow sniper in the most vulnerable position. Sergeant First Class Shughart used his long range rifle and side arm to kill an undetermined number of attackers while traveling the perimeter, protecting the downed crew. Sergeant First Class Shughart continued his protective fire until he depleted his ammunition and was fatally wounded. His actions saved the pilot's life. Sergeant First Class Shughart's extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty were in keeping with the highest standards of military service and reflect great credit upon him, his unit and the United States Army.

And their rifle:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m21snip.jpg

[444]

You might be right, I was basing the length of an M16 on the Bushmaster catalog, but they probably don't have a flash suppressor on the end of the barrel. So the M4 would only be 9" shorter with the stock fully extended.

"Isn't really a design flaw."
It is if you are the one trying to use it.

Long range rifle shooting in combat is about as common as money in my pocket.
I don't think that blowing up civilian houses would be tolorated any more by the general public. And you can be sure that the lefties in the news media would not only make an issue out of it, they would run the subject into the ground.

VG
They called them snipers for a reason. They were using sniper rifles.

[UnknownSailor]

Good point.

Shows how training can compensate for minor quirks in a weapon system.

[Nightcrawler]

Well, the Army seems to agree with you. The standard XM8 variant, that is apparently intended to be the standard issue infantry "rifle", has a 12" barrel. I sometimes wonder why they don't just switch to something like the HK53 and have done with it.

[444]

In what caliber ?

[Abominable No-Man]

I just had to bite on this one.

As a former M1A owner and M1A aficionado (that's a ten-dollar word for "I-like-'em'a'lot"....), here's my two cents:

Weight: Heavy yeah, but really only a factor in the NM or other HB versions.

Safety: BS flag goes up here too. See Andrew Wyatt's explaination.

Ammo sensitivity: Don't know about that one. I used to fire all kinds of stuff in mine with no problems.

Operating rod: I will have to second the opinions on that. It is

waaaay past annoying. And you CAN dislodge it from its track. Sad troof....

Versatility: Not sure what the issue here is. IMO, anything you can do with a 5.56 you can do with a .7.62. Not vice-versa, tho. Okay, you can't switch calibers, that's true, but that's why you have more than one gun. Then again, there's the old saying "Beware the man with only one gun...."

CQB: Point taken. THEN AGAIN.......WWII saw a lot og house-to-house fighting and they had the M1 then.......:p


Flash suppressor: Likes to wiggle loose, as was previously noted. 20/20 hindsight says it was not a good place to put the front sight. Probably a setup similar to the Mini-14 GB would be better.

Full-auto fire: Never fired one on full-auto, don't know.

Rear sight: I like them, but maybe they
are a bit overengineered. IMO, no worse than the M16A2's.

Bedding issues:............I had a fiberglass stock mated to my receiver and had no problems. Not sure what to tell you there....

Bottom line: the M1A is a Great Rifle. It's not the Perfect Rifle.

ANM

[Nightcrawler]

Both the XM8 and HK53 are 5.56mm. I think that 10" or so is exactly half the barrel length you need for a the velocity-dependent 5.56mm round, but if nobody every shooots at anybody more than 100 meters away anymore, and everybody just cuts down the badguys with burstfire anyway, I don't think it'd matter much.

[444]

"Bottom line: the M1A is a Great Rifle. It's not the Perfect Rifle."

12" barrel in 5.56 is cutting it pretty fine. I personally think a 16" barrel would be closer to ideal.
One thing to keep in mind, the reason the 5.56 is velocity dependant is because of the choice of bullets. Much easier to fragment bullets are readily available, the military just won't use them. The problem of course is that if you get too fangible of a bullet, it won't penetrate any kind of cover or armor.

[chickenfried]

One thing I hate on my M1A is not being able to just insert the magazine straight into the rifle. Having to do that 25 degree front end first thing drives me. But I'll get used to it, I hope.

[kotengu]

"receiver required way more work than other rifles of its day and was as such uneconomical to produce for comparable results"

Is it really any more difficult than the FAL receiver? Both are machining-intensive, yet the FAL was adopted in 90+ countries and now we can buy receivers for $200 - $500 new. What's an M1A receiver cost?

[Nightcrawler]

The problem of course is that if you get too fangible of a bullet, it won't penetrate any kind of cover or armor.

I would assume this is already a problem in a bullet that apparently can't penetrate something soft and squishy like a human being and not break apart. I've heard they've been testing heavier 5.56mm bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan, presumably to get better downrange energy and possibly to get better penetration of cover.

Of course, I think the fragmentation of 5.56mm FMJ rounds has been overrated, to the point where people are using it for home defense becaue they think it won't go through a few layers of drywall, plywood, and sheetrock. Good thing this isn't true, as all our enemies would have to do would be to start wearing easily, cheaply constructed plywood and drywall armor vests and it'd be all over. :D

(Anybody imagine a humvee plated with sheetrock to give it small arms protection? LOL)

[444]

Well we are getting far off subject here, but you are making a false assumption. The fragmentation of military 5.56 hasn't been over-rated, it has been extensively tested. Military 5.56 does infact tumble and fragment but this does not mean that it does not penetrate also. In fact, you can defeat body armor in all but the largest threat ratings, but after penetrating, the bullet should tumble and fragment. Be that as it may, the police departments that I have heard about do not carry military ball ammo. Federal HP is popular as is Hornady TAP.

I posted this on another thread, but this is an important concept. Have you ever considered how difficult it is to design a bullet for military use ? As civilians we can pick and choose not only bullets, but calibers and weapons. We can tailor our arms to our intended target. For example in 5.56 we can shoot highly frangible varmint bullets such as the Hornady V-Max that will completely fragment inside a small animal like a groundhog. Or, we can shoot softpoints, hollowpoints, armor piercing, match bullets, weights ranging from 45 grains up to 80 or more grains and it all that isn't enough we can open the safe and grab the .22-250 or the .243 or whatever. The soldier is limited to one weapon and a couple loads, which are expected to do everything. They are expected defeat body armor, penetrate light armored vehicles, cut through cover, tumble and fragment in flesh, and exhibit accuracy out to the effective range of the weapon; all in one bullet. The caliber is expected to be light and easy to carry, it is expected to be controllable on full auto, and (according to the internet commandos) it is expected to shoot with laser like precision out to 600, 800, or even 1000 yards. Note that there are two polor opposites at work here. You want maximum penetration and you want fragmentation. And you want all this to happen at velocities ranging from muzzle velocity to the velocity at 800 yards and from barrel lengths from 14.5" to 20" in all temperatures, at all altitudes. And if it doesn't do all that and more, the guys on the internet (that will never have to use it) will tear it apart and label it as ineffective. That is a tall order to fill for a bullet.

Just a few observations, that I think are left out of a lot of internet discussions because the truth doesn't support the argument being made. Not directed at anyone in particular. YMMV. No one under 21 permitted unless accompnied by and adult..................................

[45R]

The M14 may have its flaws....but wasnt this tread posted as

"We here all the time about the flaws of the M-16, Ak-47, etc, but rarely do we here about the M-14. I doubt it could be perfect. Could somebody list the flaws of the M-14/M-1A type rifles? Thank you."


Not


"Compare and contrast the M14 to the current M4/M16 varients."


Personally I like my M1A

[Atlas Shrug]

Slight corrections on Mogadishu, Somalia use.

Only Randy Shughart used an M14, and it was NOT an M21 sniper version. Gary Gordon, as most Deltas seem to, used an M16 variation.

For some reason, they say "sniper" nowadays instead of "rifleman" as was done in the past. I guess that anyone taking deliberate aim at a single target is now considered a sniper. So much for the progress of our language use......

Everyone should read the book _Blackhawk Down_ several times. THEN buy the DVD of the movie. It should be required for anyone needing preparation for urban combat. It's good military and political history as well.

My $0.02.

[Nightcrawler]

Ah, yes, did not mean to hijack the thread.

In any case, the fact that an M14, as issued, is long for indoor use isn't really an inherent flaw of the design, as it can be made shorter if necessary (Ala M4 vs M16...you can't swap uppers on the M14, but then, I've never once been issued my M16 and then have been given an M4 upper so I can swap before clearing a house...)

[444]

I don't really thing this was all that far off topic. We were bascially comparing the two wepons in terms of length and what the current day GIs serving in combat have said they want.
The military ammo discussion is just as valid no matter what caliber we are discussing. I was recently told a story by a Gunsite instructor about his experience with the M14 while serving in the Marine Corp in Vietnam. The story centered around the fact that she shot several guys at close range and they kept getting back up. The point I believe is that the FMJ military ball round just punched a clean hole through them. Unfortunately, as I mentioned before, military ammo has to be a jack of all trades and as a result doesn't really work great at any one of those tasks. This isn't a knock on the weapon itself, but instead on the ammo issued with it.

[Carnitas]

Bottom line the M1A/M14 is a proven battlefield weapon. Its problems are known and surmountable. Its utility is less in situations where light weight and close quarters are important considerations. Its utility is greater where aimed fire, distance, wind, and penetration are important.

Personally I think an individual rifleman is better served by the M1A than an AR, or FAL. For those working in groups the AR and FAL may be more appropriate.

[kotengu]

I am offended that you put the FAL (great, godly weapon) in a class with the AR (lowly mousegun) :o :D :o :D :o :D

Seriously though - I don't see all that many differences between the FAL and the M14, other than the M14 seems to be more suited to match shooting (more refined sights) while the FAL seems more suited to the battlefield (more "soldier proof" sights, easier to field strip/maintain).

The ergonomics of the FAL suit me much better than those of the M14, but that's pretty subjective.

Can you clarify?

[45R]

In regards to operating the op rod.

Wouldnt one be more well served pushing the release on the left side vs reaching over to use the op rod.....or is pushing the bolt lock to release the bolt a bad thing.......

[Badger Arms]

What release? In a rapid reload on an AK-47, M-1A, or SKS, I always rotate the rifle 90 degrees to the left, pull back the slide with my the palm of my left hand, and let it fly home as I bring the rifle back on target, ready to fire. Before a match, I practice the manual of arms with whatever rifle I'm using (DCM AR-15 or M-1 Garand mostly) to get it down. Shot a match with the HK-91 once. That had to be the most difficult manual of arms I'd ever practiced, especially on slow-fire rounds.

Oh, what's wrong wht the M-14? I agree with the fact that it's a 30's design in a 50's execution with 20's technology and refinement that would only please a Frenchman. Don't confuse the M-14 (a sound battle rifle for the 40's) with the M-21 (a refined sniper rifle for the 50's).

Here's what you do to improve the M-14. First, choose a winner next time. The FAL and AR-10 were better weapons, and the H&K G-3 was at least its equal. I have no beef with the M-14. It was the fourth best rifle in that caliber available at the time of its adoption. Fourth place isn't so bad. We're all winners after all! In it's day, I would have been more than satisfied to go to war with any of the big four.

At a certain point in its development, the Army decided to fix the design and produce the M-14 in spite of the fact that bugs still existed. Had the development continued from WWII throuh its adoption (which did not happen), then the M-14 would have served itself much better.

I still pine for the 276 Pederson though. Man, that was a round that would have stuck.

[Andrew Wyatt]

*shrug* the m-14 fits my concept of a good battle rifle inasmich as it has a better trigger and sights than any of those other three, doesn't need a cleaning rod to clear stuck cases, and is left hand friendly. (all of the ar-10s i've seen seem to be less than reliable with military surplus ammunition, as they have light hammers.

Full auto controllability is not a factor for me, and I'm reasinably certain that the m-14's rear sight can take more of a whack than the rear on an AK or FAL, since both of those aren't protected by ears of any kind.

[Kestrel]

Does anyone know if the FAL is as sensitive to ammo as the M1A? Is it harmful/damaging to fire commercial hunting ammo in the FAL?

Thanks,
Steve

[Carnitas]

I am offended that you put the FAL (great, godly weapon) in a class with the AR (lowly mousegun)

Not in the same class necessarily, but I'll try to explain.

Imagine a continum of war rifles of the 20th century based on a) how the design facilitates the enguagement of the enemy with aimed fire at any distance the rifleman can identlfy a target, and b) how well the rifle permits a skilled marks man to enguage the enemy as described above.

Looking at that continum you'd find on one end, bolt rifles like the springfield and mauser (long legged cartridges fired out of single shot weapons with good triggers, etc). At the other end of the spectrum you'd have things like the AK, SKS, etc (bad triggers, bad sights, relatively short range cartridges, banana mags, etc). WRT to the M14/FAL comparison the M14 is a little more of a riflemans rifle than the FAL. Its not a big difference. A little better sights, a little better trigger. perhaps a little more accurate.

As long as I'm classifying I'd put the G3 a little lower than the fal (cause of the trigger), and the AR lower than that (mouse gun cartridge). I'd put the garand a little higher than the M14 (smaller ammo supply, slightly longer cartridge).

Does that make sense?

[kotengu]

"Is it harmful/damaging to fire commercial hunting ammo in the FAL?"

Not a bit - I do it all the time. You can also shoot the "heavy" loads (190gr bullets - long range match shooting) that the M14 guys either shy away from and/or bust up their guns using. Simply turn down (or off) the gas.

As long as we're talking - I shoot 110gr varmint bullets through my FAL all the time, too - but we're getting a little of the subject here.

"What's wrong with the M14?"

- charging handle on the wrong side
- maintenence intensive (either more difficult to field maintain, or harder to keep in match condition, depending on what you're doing)
- no pistol grip
- ammo sensitive

Oh wait - I think I'm biased a little........:D

[7.62mm]

For an excellent discussion of MBR (Main Battle Rifle) choices, get "Boston's Gun Bible" by "Boston T. Party". I think Paladin Press has copies as does his web site: www.javelinpress.com (http://)

He spends ten chapters talking about the various MBRs available to US shooters today. Makes a lot of sense and is an interesting read. Yes, he talks about, and rates, the M-14 AND AR-15 at length. In the end, his book is a guide for finding out what is best for you. His opinion after much testing: M-14. Read the book to find out why.

I competed with M-1s and M1-As for years. Grand rifles. Prefer the M-14. Difficult to shoot really well, harder to master. Not as nearly as easy to shoot well as the AR-15. Modern NRA Highpower Rifle scores attest to that. However, it hits hard! I found that the M-14 doesn't have many vices. Of course, one can become used to anything, I suppose.

My choice for a SHTF MBR? M-14 or it's civilian equivalent. I like the hitting power and, living in an Urban to rural environment, I have no illusions about having to carry it around for months in the field. Age, fitness, disposition, health, and woods knowledge, preclude that.

SO, it will be fairly close quarters with BGs behind cover or on board vehicles. I think the 7.62 NATO will generally penetrate better in that environment. Even .308 Win. hunting bullets will get into the passenger cabin through doors. I have my doubts about 5.56mm doing the same on a consistent basis.

Primarily, I am used to it, can operate and field strip it in the dark, know its quirks, and "feel" more comfortable with it.

I found that the rifles I shot, both rack grade and match, were not that fussy about ammo. Yes, the match rifles could shoot sub-MOA 5 shot groups and were picky about the NATO ball, but the functioned well and met service accuracy standards in any event. NO, they were not 1,000 yard rifles with NATO ball. No rifle would be.

Didn't mean to hijack the thread, but this my $0.02. :D

[BigG]

I like the M14/M1A and the M1 Rifle but I prefer to use a 20" AR15 by Colt. Just the ammo and magazines for the M1A are wa-ay bigger and heavier than the Colt. JMHO.

Badger pretty much summed up the M14/G3/FAL/AR10 (best in my view). Disagree with his take on the bolt release on M1A. I use mine. Like AR15 same-same :)

[Grump]

Am I the only person here who has tested the lengendary fiddle-fuss gas system on the FAL series?

IT SUCKS! The M14 system fired downloaded ammo and cycled reliably after the fully-"closed" vent on the FAL wouldn't even eject the fired cases, which was AFTER it stopped feeding them.

So, design defects in the M14 system?

Bolt catch should be a release like the M16 system. It can be done, and I'd bet there's an aftermarket for them if priced $20 or less.

I agree on the op rod release cutout. It's betrayed me only once, but that one really tied up the rifle after I fired the shot! But not nearly as badly as a bad mag in an M16 series will tie up the gun when the round flies up into the channel in the underside of the charging handle, and the bolt lugs go *forward* of the case head. I've seen that one three times. The op rod problem could be solved with two or three parts and all the disadvantages that entails--sort of a takedown plunger that must be depressed before the op rod will disengage at the cutout...or maybe one part peened in--a lever...

As far as the charging handle "defect" goes, I wouldn't call it a defect. But it would be improved if we added an upright knob like the Galil-style AKs to both lefties and righties could charge the thing with either hand. Not workable for scope-bearing rifles, but the "reach-over" technique still would provide a reasonable substitute for those units.

Perhaps the lack of a firing pin retraction spring to provide redundancy over the mechanical retraction at the firing pin tail/receiver bridge interface. That single part could prevent disaster for broken firing pin tail situations--but how common are they?
:scrutiny:

That's it. Until I see some MTBF statistics for both proving ground trials and after-action combat reports, I will suspend judgment on whether the M14 is more or less reliable in use than other rifles. IME, the only way to choke one is to leave powder out of the ammo, or smash the ammo so it won't chamber.

It even extracts my broken cases just fine! The FAL's fixed ejector couldn't handle even that--the 5/8-long stub just rattled around in front of the bolt and jammed it on the forward stroke.

[Kaylee]

Bolt catch should be a release like the M16 system. It can be done, and I'd bet there's an aftermarket for them if priced $20 or less.

gah. okay, busted.
I've been working on it. submitted patent paperwork some time ago, got the tooling up, just had a hard time lining up capital for the first run. Inital test run was 01 tool steel, too hard for the application... just too hard for final machining without EDM. Second run in 4150 or so should be coming out in a couple months.

I've already been speaking with Brownells and Midway, I'll be sending them "off the line" versions for T&E next week. USN is evaluating one as we speak.

Prototypes are already on several units. Retail will be at or around 19.95, per advice of my manufacturing guy, barring any more production surprises.

-K

PS .. anyone wants one NOW, I have a few blanks (I think like 5 or 6) from the 01 tool steel run left. They'll need to be drilled out to fit on the rifle, and break drill bits left and right, so the cost is higher, but I could get a price for you if you're interested.

[Grump]

Kaylee, since we're talking a true patent and not mere copyright, you're safe with these ideas floating around a board you inhabit.

Congrats on a good idea! You deserve the fruits of your labors. I hope the design is fairly "bump"-resistant, like the little fence around the mag release button on the AR system. If not, I claim no right to development of such as product improvement.

[EWTHeckman]

I'm seriously considering buying a Springfield M25 as soon as I can scrape together the cash. Since the M25 is based on the M1A, how many of these issues still apply? In other words, does the M25 resolve any of these issues? Are there any issues unique to the M25?

Thanks.

[C.R.Sam]

Cool Kaylee.
I know you have bucks and time in it.
Hope you not only recoup but go well into the black on it.

Sam

[Grump]

Whattheheckman:

I don't believe that the M25 addresses any of these issues. Could be wrong... But it's still a great rifle.

[twoblink]

As a leftie, I think the charging handle is on the correct side :D

Also, Garands present a "Garand Thumb" problem to lefties that the M14 doesn't.

It's too long, and you've basically got 1 choice in stock..

That said, I still like it better than the M16 design..

[VG]

Slight corrections on Mogadishu, Somalia use.

Only Randy Shughart used an M14, and it was NOT an M21 sniper version. Gary Gordon, as most Deltas seem to, used an M16 variation.

For some reason, they say "sniper" nowadays instead of "rifleman" as was done in the past. I guess that anyone taking deliberate aim at a single target is now considered a sniper. So much for the progress of our language use......

Everyone should read the book _Blackhawk Down_ several times. THEN buy the DVD of the movie. It should be required for anyone needing preparation for urban combat. It's good military and political history as well.

True enough, I wanted to include both citations, though. I spend some time on and support www.BHD93.com. There are a lot of guys there who participated in the raid. None of them could or would tell me what exactly the configuration of his rifle was.

If you read "In the Company of Heroes" by CWO Mike Durand, he talks about what it was like being on the ground. He started out with an MP5. When it was empty he was give one of the M16's or M4's from the crew, which he found more reassuring. Amazing men, all.

RLTW

[BDM]

I am a die hard AR guy and my primary rifle is a preban bushy carbine..But I own an M1a also.No rifle fills the bill for every need thats why I have a few different choices..in any event SEALS carry it individually and for me the only draw backs are weight and amount of ammo that can be carried and the gas system takes less of a beating than the garand.In my collection I have an M1a,AK 2 AR carbines and for pistols an M9 baretta and 3 1911s 1 mossber590 shotgun all issue except the AK unless its for spec ops,all major calibers and spare parts a plenty,Im sure Ill be dust before any of these weapon systems are out of use or service.

[EWTHeckman]

Bolt catch should be a release like the M16 system.

Can you explain what this issue is in more detail? I haven't examined or handled an M1A or M1 Garand before, so pictures would be a help.

Thanks.

[Kaylee]

EWTHeckman--

you have to remember that the M14 as a descendant of the M1 comes from the days of top-loading bolt action rifles. The assumption of the day was that you'ld be shoving your reloads in the top with your right hand. while keeping your left hand on the forearm of the rifle.

Modern usage is predicated on detachable box magazines, which are typically removed by the left hand (or drop free) and are replaced by the left hand.

Thus, a user trained in more modern techniques will find himself swapping hands back and forth or twisting the rifle around to remove the old mag, insert the new one, and release the bolt on the fresh mag.

In contrast, an M-16 style bolt release allows the user to maintain a firing grip with the right hand throughout the process. remove old mag with left hand, rock in new mag, slap the release, and you're back in the game without so much as breaking your cheek weld.

original M14 bolt release on the left, Kaylee modified M16-style bolt release prototype on the right*:


http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=534533

answer your question?

-K

* the production version of the "Kaylee's Great Duh" is slightly different -- it follows the original profile on the bottom of the release, then angles out a touch at the top paddle. I found it gives better leverage on closing the bolt. It's also a might thicker, which makes it easier on the fingers when locking the bolt open. HOWEVER... the M14 mag doesn't like it when you use this thing on an empty magazine -- batters the follower too much. It'll work, just not healthy for the follower. But, since if you're using this thing, it's on a reloaded mag, the follower is 20 (10 for you CA folks I guess) rounds down the stack and wont be harmed.

:D

[Badger Arms]

If it's for a quick magazine release, great. I'd imagine people will still use it for a bolt release with a full magazine.

[Andrew Wyatt]

huh.


on heavy detachable magazine rifles, i use my strong hand (left) to remove and replace the magazine. no hand switching.



on light detachable magazine rifles, i use my weak hand. also no hand switching.

[EWTHeckman]

answer your question?

Mostly. Sorry, but I'm going to get real basic here. Like I said. The details of the M1 are new to me. :eek:

I assume the bolt automatically locks back like most semi-auto pistol slides do. Correct?

Then the standard design assumes that you're supposed to pull back on the charging handle then release it after reloading? I also assume that what you're making is basically a reshaped bolt catch that can work either way.

For example, with my Beretta, I can just hit the slide release after slapping in a new mag, or I could yank the slide back and release it to accomplish the same thing.

Do I have it right?

[BigG]

The M1A has a bolt release that is in about the same place as an M16, however it operates slightly different, i.e., it does not have a large spatulate appendage to quickly hit and release the bolt. You have to push up the little nub, more or less. It is easy to operate for me but competition shooters may want an edge. That's all I can think of because it seems like once you are used to it it is about as quick and easy. YMMV

[Jake 98c/11b]

Kaylee, nice product you have there, the M14 has been a favorite of mine for years. I hate to tell you this but I have something like what you are producing on one of my M1A's, got it years ago from Brownelles. Always wanted another one but couldn't remember who made it and, unfortunately, I have long since gotten rid of the old Brownelles catalogs. Put me down for one when they are ready to ship. Mine seems longer than what you show but sits closer to the receiver and I will admit it cost me about twice what you are asking.

Many people I know have made complaint about the M1A/M14, usually the lack of a pistol grip and night sights, being overly long and heavy, etc. I have an E2 type stock and tritium sight on mine and the above mentioned bolt release and I see little else out there that surpasses what I have. It may not be the best tool for every job but it does more well than anything else I have used.

[Jake 98c/11b]

By the way, everything I have seen shows Shugart and Gordon both using the AR system in Somalia. Anyone have anything that shows otherwise? I know one of them professed a preference for the 7.62 M14 but as I understand it both used the 5.56mm AR platform that day.

[JohnKSa]

The M14 system fired downloaded ammo and cycled reliably after the fully-"closed" vent on the FAL wouldn't even eject the fired cases, which was AFTER it stopped feeding them.
Which means that full-powered or hot ammo is REALLY beating the crap out of the M14 while the FAL gas system can be turned down to minimize the pounding on the rifle.

The adjustable gas system isn't about dealing with weak ammo. You can always hand cycle the rifle if need be. It's about being able to shoot hotter ammo safely and without damage/extra wear and tear to the rifle.

[Andrew Wyatt]

you can get an adjustable gas system doohicky from mcann, though.

[Grump]

Okay, so what about the high end of the port pressure curve on the M14 gas system? It cuts off earlier and lets in less total volume of higher pressure gas on hotter loads. Heavy bullets (NOT NATO-Spec) and slower powders (again, NOT NATO-Spec in resulting port pressures) is the only circumstance reported to overcome the M14 gas system on the high side.

How do those same loads do with the FAL?

And how much variation can the FAL take before needing to be adjusted?

The M14 system requires no adjustment by hand, with inertia and gas pressure and the close-off port in the piston doing all the work within a very wide range of operating pressures. About the only thing it can't adjust to is the grenade-launch blank, but I understand the FAL requires some fiddling to avoid damage as well--but far more involved than a quarter-turn on a gas spindle with a cartridge rim.

[kotengu]

"I understand the FAL requires some fiddling to avoid damage as well--but far more involved than a quarter-turn on a gas spindle with a cartridge rim."

Yeah - you're right. It's a half turn of the gas nut, needing no cartridge rim.

I've had no problems out of the heavy bullets (or light bullets) out of my FAL (110gr to 190gr), but I've only shot IMR4895 and Varget powders - I don't know about the slower powders.

As far as "how much variation can the FAL take" - it depends a lot on how the gas is set initially. The only time I've tried this is when I was testing different mil-surp loads to see which shot best, and I never had one fail (Korean, German, British, US, Portuguese), but I set my gas to the specifications of the manual (silly me).

[Grump]

Yeah - you're right. It's a half turn of the gas nut, needing no cartridge rim.

Try that with a hot rifle:fire: It hurts, and using the bullet nose or cartridge rim is something I found a bit clumsy.

It is an interesting but unanswered question (so far on this Board): How much heavier than the adjusted gas setting can a subsequent load get in an FAL system before the rifle gets battered MORE than an M14 system would get battered?

We'd need to know the max recommended op rod velocity for the M14 (at the known max recommended port pressure of 14,500 PSI-or izzit CUP?:banghead: ), then compare it with the max recommended bolt carrier velocity of the FAL , and...THEN measure the FAL's bolt carrier velocity with the same max-port-pressure load at VARIOUS vent settings, to see:

A. How much FAL-style "adjustment equivalent" the M14 gas system allows with its cutoff function; and

B. Whether/how much more high-pressure adjustment is achieved with the FAL gas system.

Hang on--the FAL (inch-pattern, Canadian) I worked with had a gas cutoff in the gas block--slotted for a cartidge rim, IIRC, and only a bit more sticky than the M14 gas spindle...

When the test results are in, then I'll believe the high-pressure theory. Interestingly enough, this is the first time I've seen it advocated for heavy loads. Most cite it as an advantage to assure reliability with low port-pressure loads.

[clint1911a1]

Sorry man. I have to agree with VG and the others. Gordan used a scoped 7.62mm M-14 (fine weapon) on that bloody day in the Bakara Market. Everything I've ever seen or read documents this fact, and that includes the book (by Mark Bowden), the movie, and the History Channel documentary "The True Story of Blackhawk Down".